Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 36

Thread: 21st Century High Tech vs Old School Keep it Simple

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Sidney, OH
    Posts
    444

    Goggles 21st Century High Tech vs Old School Keep it Simple

    I just finished reading the feature article in the August issue of AOPA Pilot on the new Diamond twin DA42-VI. This is a very 21st Century aircraft based on DA 42 NG, composite airframe, t-tail, new diesel engines from Austria, called Austro AE300 derived from a Mercedes-Benz auto engine. It comes with the Garmin G1000 panel, leather, A/C and such. Now the Pros for this aircraft are it's simplicity of operation. The engines are FEDAC, you select your flight configuration either fuel efficiency, or speed and then start the engines just like your car. Type in your flight plan and cruising altitude, set-up the auto-pilot and get your clearances. The main job of the pilot after take-off is to monitor your progress and communicate with ATC. While this is a very efficient way to fly, more precise and probably safer it seems kinda boring to me. Since it's diesel powered it will run on Jet-A so no future 100LL type issue. Another plus in the fuel area is it's low fuel consumption, less then 10 gal/hr total (both engines) at 55% economy cruise, 144Kts. The engines are automated to the point that prop pitch is set for optimum performance without any pilot input other then the selection of performance efficiency desired.
    OK, here's some down sides, the base price is $731K and the one you want is $938K! This is for a 4 place light twin with 168 hp engines, 1200ft/min climb rate at sea level, GTW 4189 lbs and 52 gals of fuel.

    Since I fly a '58 TriPacer I'm not in the market for this kinda aircraft, but it really does have some kool pluses. Those of you building RV's and such ever look at FEDAC engines or these high tech diesels?
    I thought this might make for an interesting topic, but keep in mind i'm not looking for a rant about Sport Aviation, this was in AOPA Pilot.

    Joe

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    2,575
    $938,000 for a funny looking plane that smells like a diesel garbage truck, and likely won't outrun or outclimb my '88 Bonanza, and even has less seats. That doesn't sound like a compelling deal to me. And how much do you think the depreciation will be the first few year?
    For $938K, you could buy a nice house here Boulder, and a good proven conventional airplane like a used Mooney or Bonanza or even something that is fun, like a T-6 and have a little left over to buy a Mercedes engine contained in a good car.
    And I need a "Fadec" engine about like I need a machine to decide what tv channel I should watch. Moving a prop lever about 2 or 3 times per flight is not too much of a burden for me, and not doing it doesn't seem like a bonus. I have not flown a Diamond twin, but I have flown the Da 40, and as for a new and different and better, well it sure is different.

    I have respect for Mercedes engineering, if money is no object, just as I have for Porsche, but some years back Mooney came out with a new model with a Porsche engine; only problem is few people wanted to buy one.
    Last edited by Bill Greenwood; 07-21-2013 at 10:56 AM.

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Sidney, OH
    Posts
    444
    Well said Bill, spoken like a true EAA'er!

    Joe

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    NW FL
    Posts
    405
    I hear you, Joe. As they say, if you haven’t tried it, don’t knock it. These new avionics are just great. And they are fast trickling down into our cockpits. My last 1K hrs as a working stiff were in one of those fancy birds with a price tag that has a few more zeros than that DA-42. ( and a lot of Honeywell in the cockpit.)

    We’re both old fogeys with made up minds. I soloed a Cub in high school in 57. Owned a string of old clunkers like Champ, Luscombe, Cessna and Beach. Got my Comm SEL in a Tripacer with an Omnigator and loved every minute of it. Passed a little time in ancient P51D, T28B & A37s.

    But I’ve got to say this. The Full Authority Digital Engine Controls are awesome. The black box on one motor talks to its counterpart about a ba-zillion times a second. Its always ready to jump in and help you if the other engine“goes rogue.” After shutdown, there’s the full history right there on screen. And the autopilots. They take such a load off when its busy. But you read the article. 21st century is great. However, it takes about 100 hrs to get confident & proficient. That could be why a friend swings by to pick me up when he goes to Houston. He has a PA 28 with an AP with Tec in its name & a 430. I still speak a little Garmin.

    Bob

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    2,575
    I will say that the Flight School at Boulder is satisfied with the DA 20 and the DA 40 that they use. Most, not all, of the new students like to fly them, and unlike old folks like me they can figure out how to work all the tecno gimmicks on the panel. The owner is satisfied with them from a maintenance standpoint also.

    Actually the 20 with the regular gages is more popular and gets more use than the one with the glass panel.

    There is another twin out on the ramp here, an old Beech D18, and when I drive up to the airport, that is the one that catches my eye.

    I may be a bit old fashioned as my Son likes to tell me. But when I look at many of the new fighters nowadays, they don't look so great, even if they are good weapons.
    They made the Spitfire in 1936 and P-51 a few years later and I don't see modern that has improved on those looks in all these years. And probably few that fly as well also.
    Last edited by Bill Greenwood; 07-21-2013 at 03:39 PM.

  6. #6
    David Pavlich's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Mandeville, LA...humidity central
    Posts
    139
    I don't see it as a VS thing more than a matter of choice. I'm sure Diamond is resting its laurels on the fact that this twin, while not a speedster like other twins, has fairly low operating costs. Yes you can put more passengers in a Bonanza, but would you run across Lake Michigan at night in a Bonanza single? Besides, my guess is that if someone can afford this twin, he or she could probably have an Aeronca parked next to it for those days that he or she wanted to put on a white scarf and go after that $100 burger. :-)

    David

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    45
    Who can afford this thing in this day and age ?

  8. #8
    Flyfalcons's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Bonney Lake, WA
    Posts
    197
    Quote Originally Posted by Skyguy View Post
    Who can afford this thing in this day and age ?
    A Cirrus is about the same price and they can't make them fast enough.
    Ryan Winslow
    EAA 525529
    Stinson 108-1 "Big Red", RV-7 under construction

  9. #9
    Aaron Novak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Oshkosh, Wi
    Posts
    361
    Everything has its place. Pilots come in all forms, of all types of interest. Some people really get into the AP stuff, FADEC and the like, others want to do everything themselves. Some people have manual transmissions in their cars, others automatics. Some people are into GPS, others prefer a map. I am from the school of thought that says the simplest way to do something, with the simplest machinery, will be the most reliable....and reliability is my primary concern.

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Sidney, OH
    Posts
    444
    OK, now this thread is getting going! Aaron has really hit my thoughts on the subject and David makes some good points. I am a old school guy having started my aviation experience as a loadmaster where we were taught to do CG shift problems with a pencil and the back side of AF form 365F, yes we had slide rules and later an on-board computer in the C-130A's, but check rides and test we're always done without any aids. I am not technology challenged and I recently bought a mini IPad which makes flying the old PA22-160 real easy. The whole idea of a FEDAC engine either 100LL or Jet A for a cross-country kit or homebuilt seems like it would be right down most EAA'ers alley.

    Another thought is what happens when/if the high tech stuff fails, can a pilot switch to old school training and airmanship and save the day? Or, will the complexity of the systems just overwhelm a guy? Here's where the old KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid) comes into play. Here's where David's idea of being proficient in an old Champ may save your bacon!

    Bill, you forgot the old F-86 Saber which is the Jet version of the P-51, but your right, 2-seat fighters with 2 engines, don't quite stir the blood. Don't get me started on the F-117...looks like something made by folding along the dotted lines!

    Joe

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •